Well, you did it again, President […]
Your opponents are flummoxed, perhaps even a little humiliated after your latest political demonstration. They thought they had you in a tight spot, but you played your cards carefully, and you showed everyone you know how to use your authority. You used your people well. Yes, you say, you’re a little diminished now, but who wouldn’t be, after so many years in charge of a large and fractious country?
You certainly know the art of political self-preservation, and you have a talent for putting on a show. You have little interest in democracy, but you have always known how to use the media when it suits you, and the latest incident is no exception. Your opponents call you all kinds of names, but they have always underestimated your talent.
Of course, there are the courts. The lawyers and judges will come after you and your friends — they have been doing so already — and you may lose a few important allies along the way. Necessary sacrifices! And yet in the end, judges merely wear robes, and their words of condemnation do not carry force by themselves. (Judges can also easily be replaced, as you have shown.) Justice, in short, is merely a word, a debating point for powerless intellectuals like myself. Unqualified, absolute Power — that is where you deal.
It comes down to this: you have the support of the military, and the military is everything. The needs of security and the projection of strength carry great emotional force for most citizens. The fact that you have weakened your country’s democratic institutions does not particularly worry you. It is doubtful that your citizens will demand their return; democracy can always be sacrificed in the name of security, can it not? The simmering resentment of the masses, in all except extreme cases, can be managed, can it not? (That is what tear gas is for.)
You may win this round — indeed, by quieting your opponents, it is hard to see how it could be otherwise. You may or may not stay in power much longer yourself, but you have a good chance of seeing a friendly successor continue your policies. If you are as smart as you have seemed to be thus far, you will avoid the disgrace that ended the careers of many of your predecessors.
History, however, will still judge you. It will always be there, staring back at the waste of these years, casting an unblinking eye on the mess you’ve made.
[Which President, of which country?]
Musharraf? Pakistan? come to think of it, you can fill that blank up with few other names too
nice one. I’m guessing that you, picked the right words to imply Musharraf and Bush at the same time..
nice one. I’m guessing that you, picked the right words to imply Musharraf and Bush at the same time.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it… I suppose there’s no point being coy…
The Musharraf incident is pretty obvious — allowing Nawaz Sharif to fly back only to deport him again immediately was a masterstroke.
With Bush, it’s not quite as clear cut I’m thinking that Gen. Petraeus’ arguments in front of Congress for keeping troop levels as they are will make things harder for the Democrats in the coming months. (Bush has used his people well where it counts) Despite the results of last November’s elections, there is still no effective political opposition to the Iraq war.
Both are incidents that occurred yesterday…
Nicely done.
You might as well add in which decade?
Amardeep, This was brilliant ! I stared reading it – thought “Bush” ..then wait, “No,musharraf”…then “Bush” again and then “?”:-)
Hugo Chavez ?
except his approval rating (around 60%) is much higher than those of the other two
With such an “approval” rating, who can fault him then for appointing himself “president for life”. A true champion of democracy.
Mahinda Rajapakse (Sorry Lanka)?
Bush has sacrificed democracy for security?!! Democracy?
A little more than a year from now, folks will have to find a different lightening rod to get their daily fix.
M. Nam
Not to worry.. this lightening rod will keep giving for while..
Nice job! I’m going to have to forward this, I think…
Vikram, do your homework. He has removed term limits; he still has to be elected every time.
Abe Lincoln!
on 2nd thought, Amardeep clearly is referring to FDR!
No one abused the constitution more than Roosevelt and his “court packing” proposal. the right to property was completely redefined to the point where the government can now take a citizens private home and give it to a casino operator.
not to mention a little internment camp.
nicely done.
Putin
I think Musharraf dealt with Sharif in as brazen a fashion as he did mainly because of the bitterness from their personal feud – Sharif knows too much, both about Kargil and about what actually happened during October 1999, when Musharraf had his coup. Also, Sharif appointed Musharraf as Chief of the Army back when, and given all that, Musharraf simply cannot risk having Sharif in the country. I can’t imagine how Sharif thought he would have been allowed in. It’s not like he was getting any warm fuzzies from the West either, the way Benazir has been. In fact, Musharraf himself said many times that Sharif wouldn’t be allowed. It’s too bad his new toupe, the plastic surgery, and even the weight loss he seemed to have achieved will all be for nought.
Well written, Amardeep!
huh… for a minute there i thought it was the president of my home country… well it could be except it’s a she 😉
A. Pinochet? 😀
Well, I started with George W Bush and Pratibha Patil before quickly discarding the latter. Then I sort of settled on Musharraf. After reading some of the responses above, I can only quote:
Deer amerideep,
I wud take this oppotunity ta make you da head of OPEC or APEC whatever it is. Don’t worry about eye-raq cos i-wreck ed it already. Do consider going down under austria for a vacation & sorry for my english cos its my second language. Lets go boyz, Yeeeehaaw !!
AWESOME!!! BRILLIANT!!
you posted a snarky little story which could refer to both Bush or Musharraf, sure to appeal to the liberal and suspicious of pakistani politician majorities that probably read this blog without addressing any serious substantive argument from what would be legitimate opposing views (which while held by minorities, are still held by substantial minorities which are made up of a diverse set of individuals which include good, honest and intelligent people]).
However, you do lose points for the following:
1) not incorporating the word ‘orwellian’ 2) no video clips from jon stewart or colbert 3) inexplicably not explaining how the potential leader is still silencing his opponents despite the fact you and your vocal majorities have been very visibly protesting these leaders every step of the way and have somehow turned the tide and gained these vocal and democratic majorities 4) not explaining how what could be seen as a callous preaching to the choir post only about a post above the 9/11 post is actually a victory for freedom because you are poking a hole through the oppressive solemnity of mourning for the 9/11 attacks 5) And finally, not explaining that while you use such divisive ‘us vs them’ terms (the same ones you accuse these presidents of) as ‘your people’, claiming that ‘your friends and your judges’ are all mindless cronies, and that only ‘you and your’ people practice the art of political self preservation, the truth is that you only use these divisive terms in order to represent those people who actually have the enlightened and correct view of government and politics and that your demonization of your opponents is only for everyone’s good
Abraham Lincoln:
was responsible for the death of over 600,000 American and over 1000000 casualties directly from the war he thrust the country into (not to mention the hundreds of thousands who died from ancillary effects of the war
appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade suspended the writ of habeas corpus spent money without congressional authorization imprisoned 18,000 suspected enemy soldiers without any trial had his political and judicial cronies declare all of the above constitutional
His administration took control of telegraph lines, temporarily shut down disloyal newspapers and denied them access to the mails (the primary means of communication in a world before phones, radio, TV, etc.), and arbitrarily arrested editors.
claimed with regards to his actions in the war “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it.â€
he was elected president with only 40% of the popular vote. he was called a ‘grotesque baboon’, a ‘third-rate country lawyer who once split rails and now splits the Union’, a ‘coarse, vulgar joker’, a dictator, an ape, a buffoon and the craftiest and most dishonest politician that ever disgraced an [American political] office by the press.
had newspapers like the star and world claim “There is no act of tyranny more odious than that which strikes at the liberty of the press—the freedom of thought and speech… for all time to come, history will point back to the reign of Abraham Lincoln, as having displayed a timidity most ludicrous, a terror most abject, a despotism most foul and hideous, a tyranny utterly regardless of all moral considerations, trampling under foot all the guarantees of a written Constitution, which he solemnly swore before God and the world, to maintain, revere, and support”
and that’s only the beginning.
Clearly, you were teasing us because this post was obviously about lincoln.
Nicely done, took me a few lines to get the beauty of it!
“P.S.: And history shall judge you even more harshly for that ridiculous hairpiece you wear over your bald spot.” ;-P
So clever (#24),
you posted a snarky little story which could refer to both Bush or Musharraf, sure to appeal to the liberal and suspicious of pakistani politician majorities that probably read this blog without addressing any serious substantive argument from what would be legitimate opposing views
This post was a thought experiment, designed to provoke. In earlier posts I’ve raised substantive issues regarding the current situation in Pakistan; you can go there if you want “substantive”. The fact that at least some people have seen other dictators or near-dictators (i.e., Putin) in my description of a “President” means that the idea might have worked.
inexplicably not explaining how the potential leader is still silencing his opponents despite the fact you and your vocal majorities have been very visibly protesting these leaders every step of the way and have somehow turned the tide and gained these vocal and democratic majorities
This may be true with the U.S. Congress, but it is not the case with Musharraf at all. The fact that people abroad are hostile to Musharraf doesn’t mean anything, as long as he’s silenced the opposition at home.
Moreover, as I said in an earlier comment, I do think that the Democrats have largely failed to assemble a stable anti-war point of view. The Democratic leaders are currently prepared to compromise on their plans to force troop withdrawal, giving the president exactly what he wants (i.e., no major withdrawal while he is still president). That’s why, in the post itself, I emphasized the President’s ability to get out of trouble.
not explaining how what could be seen as a callous preaching to the choir post only about a post above the 9/11 post is actually a victory for freedom because you are poking a hole through the oppressive solemnity of mourning for the 9/11 attacks
You are clearly reading a different blog than I am. Have you read the other comments on this thread? I am obviously not preaching to any choir. I know that there are people who see things differently here.
And don’t lecture me about mourning, 9/11, etc. I’m sick of being told to shut up because of 9/11. If anything, for me it’s become a day to voice dissent with the government.
And finally, not explaining that while you use such divisive ‘us vs them’ terms (the same ones you accuse these presidents of) as ‘your people’, claiming that ‘your friends and your judges’ are all mindless cronies,
I don’t think this is divisize language. In the U.S. context I was referring to specific cronies, not Republican party members in general. When I talk about judges (and I should have said lawyers) being replaced, I am thinking about Musharraf’s attempt to remove Iftikar Choudhry, and the Bush White House’s interference with the Justice Department. I’m also making a general point about separation of powers, and how the judiciary can, to a great extent, be ‘programmed’ by the executive.
Musharraf is not done with Choudhry or the rest of the Supreme Court — I wouldn’t be surprised if these guys were all under house arrest in the next few weeks.
One other thing, “So Clever” — in future, please only use one alias on a single comment thread.
Vikram, do your homework. He has removed term limits; he still has to be elected every time.
Right. Because he’s so sure he’s going to win every relection. Convenient. Perhaps you should read this. Exit polls in Venezuela
and he quotes something akin to a WSJ opinion piece as evidence…seriously i wonder if the columnist would have the same reactions to exit polls in india that predicted a landslide victory for the bjp (remember “india shining”?); look, among statisticians (and not political hacks who write opinion pieces and polling companies) there are some very good criticisms of exit polling; in fact there is a whole literature…and conditions and factors that explained the failure of such polling in india (and indeed in many other countries) also potentially explain its failure in venezuela. i’m no fan of chavez myself (but hey, the poor seem to like him; who am i to disagree?), but you’ve got to do better than that poorly written and argued piece. ideology cannot take the place of rigorous arguments (ideally the latter should form the basis of the former).
@31:
So if Bush & co pushed for abolition of presidential term limits, inline with Chavez’s ploy, would that be fine with you ?
sure. i’ll have no problems with that, provided he stands for reelection every time. also note this this is de facto the case in all parliamentary systems (which are arguably more ‘democratic’), where there are theoretically no term limits for the prime minister (who is nominated by the party winning most of the seats). in fact arguably the abolition of term limits increases the time horizon of leaders and thus (some argue) making them behave more responsibly and more in tune with public sentiments (compare this with a president under fixed terms who does not have to care about public opinion to the extent that he/she does not face reelection)
Amardeep,
Your conception on Pakistani politics lack any sense of nuance or pragmatism. The two “democratically” elected leaders you seem to come to the defense of so quickly would rank in the top five corrupt leaders in any country in the 90’s. Nawaz Sharif brought Pakistan to near economic collapse and failed-state status, while laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in a paper-mill scheme. Benazir Bhutto’s husband was commonly reffered to as Mr. ten percent, take a guess why? These people come from landlord families who institute a near serfdom on their people.
Your assertions about the media are completely false and i’m wondering if you just pulled that out of your ass. Under Musharraf the media has flourished, channels like GEO, ARY, and PTV, amongst others are openly criticizing the government. Compare that to the relations which Nawaz Sharif, who you’ve placed on a pedestal as a defenseless victim fighting for democracy, had with the media. Nawaz manipulated the system to assume almost autocratic rule, and even more dangerous, tried to impose a virtual caliphate driven by sharia law. Today, Pakistan’s GDP growth is among the highest in Asia. Visiting almost every year, i’ve never seen a such a marked progression in the cleanliness of the cities and the rapid development of infrastructure.
What alarms me about your view is that as a member of the South Asian diaspora, I thought you would inform yourself much deeper about the issues rather than regurgitate the same two-dimensional view of democracy that you see in the Western press. Why do you think we’re in this mess in Iraq? Because arrogance has made us believe that our institutions would ail the problems of others. Let’s hope the people of Pakistan don’t share your shallowness when Musharraf’s name is on the ballot.